How many days did creation take?

[mark kennedy]

Genesis 2:4 "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created..."

this narrative opens explaining they are about to give an account of when the heavens and earth where created. Genesis 1-2:3 seems to have already given an account so the text says in itself it is retelling the story.

It's an expansion on the original theme, not a retelling of it and it's obviously an expansion of the account of the creation of man. It's not a retelling, that's absurd, it's a continuation of the historical record confirmed in the New Testament witness.

Genesis 2:5 "Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground."

ok we have an earth with dry land but there is no vegetation.

No it's not, it's an expansion on the creation of day 6, it's a literary feature that starts with the account of the creation of the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1 Then it's expanded to include the 6 days of creation. Then, after the seventh day the focus goes back to the 6th day to expand on the creation of man. The plants were already created and what is in light here are cultivated plants. I would break down the construction but this kind of skepticism never yields to sound exegesis so let's dispense with the external source material you are either unaware of or don't care about.

Clearly man was created on day 6, so to expand on the creation of man in chapter 2 is obviously going back to day 6.

If we are to assume this follows the creation account in Genesis 1 then this must mean it is part way in day 3 since on day 3 God made both dry land and vegetation. but as we read on day 4, 5 are skipped and it seems to jump right into day 6. Remember the OP when I said day 3 and 6 can be paired together well Genesis 2 happens to confirm this as well.

This is how it's told, the first three days prepare the earth for life. Day one just introduces light, probably not even natural light but most likely the glory of God. Then on day two the water below (seas) are separated from the waters above (clouds). Then on the third day God separated the seas from dry land indicating previously the surface of the seas were covered with thick clouds and the land was covered with water. The plants described on day three are different then the ones spoken of at the creation of man. Nothing has been skipped, the plants were already created but God planted cultivated plants in Eden that had not sprouted yet because it was a garden. There was no point until there was someone to take care of the plants in it.

What you are retelling are the rationalizations of skeptics who have categorically rejected the Scriptures in their entirety. These criticisms have been answered again and again for better the a hundred years and they are not the work of Christian scholarship. They are the taunts and mockery of unbelievers.

In 2:5 the text says there was no vegetation because there was no rain or anyone to cultivate the earth. In verse 6 it shows us how a mist would rise from the earth to water the ground and then verse 7 man is created. After man is created in verse 8 God plants the Garden of Eden. There seems to be this back and forth motion here that is inconsistent with the literal days presented in Genesis 1. God creates dry land, then he creates man, then he plants vegetation which are examples of day 3 and day 6 being completely overlapped.

God creates an emerging land mass day 3 and there is grass and trees. On day 6 there were cultivated plants still in the ground but the had not sprouted because God withheld the rain, still watering the other plants with a mist. Cultivated plants need more attention and in that day and age people supported their families with gardens, family gardens that were attached to their homes. There was also a major agricultural industry that was vital, especially in what was called the fertile crescent. This culture would have readily discerned the difference between wild plants like grass and trees and cultivated plants that required care and attention.

These are real issues, I don't deny that. You just have to be willing to make more then a superficial treatment of the subject matter.

If you want to believe the account in Genesis 2 all took place on day 6 then you are ignoring the command God gave on day 3 saying "let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them" This is what I mean by reconciling the two accounts.

They are not the same plants and even if they were, some were fully formed and others had not yet sprouted exactly as described. Did you miss this verse entirely?

The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. (Gen 2:8)​

In addition to the creation of the entire ecosphere of earth's biological economy God planted a garden. Specifically, planted a garden on the same day (day 6) that he created man and the creatures of the field. God is not creating plant life on day 6, he is simply planting a garden in anticipation of the creation of man who would have dominion over all of the creation. That seems pretty obvious from looking at the text in the context it would no doubt have been taught by the Levites starting with Moses.

Your going to have to read the text a little more carefully and stop getting your exegetical analysis from unbelieving skeptics who have been answered on this matter many times.

 

[ProScribe]

For example, 72 hours of work may have been compacted into single days of the week.

 

[ptomwebster]

Yes, the reaction of the elder son to his father accepting the younger back is just as disrespectful as the younger son at the beginning of the parable.

Luke 15, is about lost and found things. The sheep was lost and was found, the coin was lost and was found, and the younger brother was lost and was found. The older brother was lost and didn't know he's lost so could not be found. Christ was pointing this illustration at the Pharisees and scribes but they did not understand it.

All these stories could have been real events.

 

[Assyrian]

Luke 15, is about lost and found things. The sheep was lost and was found, the coin was lost and was found, and the younger brother was lost and was found. The older brother was lost and didn't know he's lost so could not be found. Christ was pointing this illustration at the Pharisees and scribes but they did not understand it.

All these stories could have been real events.

Matt 21:38 But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, 'This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.'
39 And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
40 When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?"
41 They said to him, "He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons."

Notice how Jesus invited his listeners to supply their own end to the story? That is not relating a real event, it is weaving a story and inviting others to take part in the storytelling, an interactive parable as it were. Notice as well how the story switched from the past tense, ''when the tenants saw the son'', to the future tense, ''what will he do'', and ''he will put those wretches to a miserable death''. This is not relating an event that had actually happened. It only happened in the story and was only going to be finished when the story came to an end.

 

[ptomwebster]

Matt 21:38 But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, 'This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.'
39 And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
40 When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?"
41 They said to him, "He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons."

....

Real events used to illustrate future events. That's how a good teacher teaches.

 

[Assyrian]

Real events used to illustrate future events. That's how a good teacher teaches.

Sorry, that's just repeating your claim, not answering my post.

 

[mark kennedy]

Sorry, that's just repeating your claim, not answering my post.

He actually had to say that more then once and you argued the point. Amazing!

 

[Assyrian]

He actually had to say that more then once and you argued the point. Amazing!

You mean when a creationist says something a few times we should just accept that it is true? I though parables were some of the scriptural passages you recognised weren't literal? Yet when I take his claim apart with evidence from an actual parable, and he is unable to do anything other than repeat his claim, you jump to his aid defending a point you don't even agree with, with nothing other than claims of amazement that I would question what he has said more than once.

 

[mark kennedy]

You mean when a creationist says something a few times we should just accept that it is true? I though parables were some of the scriptural passages you recognised weren't literal? Yet when I take his claim apart with evidence from an actual parable, and he is unable to do anything other than repeat his claim, you jump to his aid defending a point you don't even agree with, with nothing other than claims of amazement that I would question what he has said more than once.

Something that simple, no less then one line with nothing more then he said and you want to argue? Does it even matter what it is, you just argue? Obviously there is a comparative analogy in the parables, generally two literal things with direct correlations. That doesn't mean you get to take an historical narrative and turn it into a parable just because you don't believe it. It doesn't make a guy wrong just because he is a creationist and it doesn't make you superior just because you ridicule creationists incessantly and exclusively.

Ever give any thought to actually having a constructive conversation with Christians? The New Testament calls it edification, are we going to start debating whether or not the church is a physical organism or an actual Temple?

Your hopelessly pedantic dude, I have no idea why.

Matt 21:38

Notice how Jesus invited his listeners to supply their own end to the story? That is not relating a real event, it is weaving a story and inviting others to take part in the storytelling, an interactive parable as it were. Notice as well how the story switched from the past tense, ''when the tenants saw the son'', to the future tense, ''what will he do'', and ''he will put those wretches to a miserable death''. This is not relating an event that had actually happened. It only happened in the story and was only going to be finished when the story came to an end.

There's a comparison here, Jesus being the chief cornerstone rejected by the builders. Jesus uses this story not as a fictional account but as a legal right they had and no doubt, often exercised. What do you mean just a story? On what basis do you get to decide what is real and what is not? This is a kingdom parable, this is getting very close to the cross, this is a watershed confrontation of Jesus with the hypocrites of his day. What do you take away from the story? A way to correct someone who actually has the unmitigated gall to believe the Genesis account as written.

It would not be so bad if you ever did anything else. We all know what you don't believe, have you ever once discussed anything on here that you do believe? Because if you have I have yet to see it.

What is a Christian to you Assyrian? This group of folks thought being a Creationist was pretty important:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; (Nicean Creed)​

Does that sound like the confession of a theistic evolutionist? Do these guys sound like they were going around talking about the parable of creation or discussing how the incarnation was a metaphor? Do you really think they went around attacking every creationist they meet because they didn't know that Genesis 1 was a parable?

Sandwiched between two confessions of creation is the confession of the incarnation. An event of such magnitude that it precedes the confession of the Gospel that follows close behind, in the next line as a matter of fact. So what do you want me to take away from you endless criticisms of Creationism, that it's godly zeal or righteous indignation? Not a single confession, admission or even the slightest mention of the incarnation, resurrection, ascension or return of Christ. Not once have you saw fit to share the Gospel with a Creationist, or a theistic evolutionist, or even a passing remark about it.

Nothing but a single constant theme, it's all a parable? We get it Assyrian, you don't believe that God created the heavens and the earth, life in a week and man from the dust as Moses declares and the Hebrews taught 2,000 years prior to Christ's incarnation. We get that you want to reduce the historical narrative of Genesis 1 and 2 and who knows how many other passages to parables, stories and myths derived from the surrounding pagan cultures.

We get it but there is just one thing that puzzles me, do you ever have anything else to talk about? Why would this be you only issue?

 

[Assyrian]

Something that simple, no less then one line with nothing more then he said and you want to argue? Does it even matter what it is, you just argue?

Most of his posts are one line claims with no evidence to back them up. But this is a discussion forum, why shouldn't I point out the problems with claims I don't agree with?

Obviously there is a comparative analogy in the parables, generally two literal things with direct correlations.

literal?

That doesn't mean you get to take an historical narrative and turn it into a parable just because you don't believe it.

You would need to show the creation accounts are historical narrative rather than just claiming it. But if creationists find it difficult to realise parables aren't literal they really aren't in that good a position to telling figurative texts from historical.

It doesn't make a guy wrong just because he is a creationist and it doesn't make you superior just because you ridicule creationists incessantly and exclusively.

You are back to thinking that refuting a Creationist means we are ridiculing them.

Ever give any thought to actually having a constructive conversation with Christians?

It is quite difficult, creationists don't seem to want to engage in constructive discussions. It is great when they do, but the problem is that Creationism simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The New Testament calls it edification, are we going to start debating whether or not the church is a physical organism or an actual Temple?

Why should I when you are using edification in its proper sense and not claiming Paul's imagery of building up the body of Christ is literal?

Your hopelessly pedantic dude, I have no idea why.

I am sure I am at times, but the pedantry you are complaining about there was entirely in your imagination.

 

[Keachian]

Do you believe Noahs flood?

Local flood, but this isn't really a topic for discussion in this thread.

ANE

ANE Cosmogonies and Genesis 1

Well, "JC" by talking about metaphor in regards to Gen 1 makes a wrong step, but he is right in suggesting that considering its similarities and differences to other ANE cosmology texts it is making theological points first and foremost, this fits in with the use that Christ puts the text to; that is theology in regards to marriage.

When someone posts me a link i read it, even when its TE ummmm 'stuff', out of interest do you read links people post you?

When they're not >20min videos

 

[Keachian]

What is a Christian to you Assyrian? This group of folks thought being a Creationist was pretty important:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; (Nicean Creed)​

Does that sound like the confession of a theistic evolutionist? Do these guys sound like they were going around talking about the parable of creation or discussing how the incarnation was a metaphor? Do you really think they went around attacking every creationist they meet because they didn't know that Genesis 1 was a parable?

I have a Thread for this:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7673339/
Some people would like you to weigh in...

 

[mark kennedy]

Most of his posts are one line claims with no evidence to back them up. But this is a discussion forum, why shouldn't I point out the problems with claims I don't agree with?

God's natural revelation is self-evident, Creation is a given in the Scriptures and nowhere in those pages is it argued or debated. You disagree that good teachers use parables, you said yourself he didn't say much, but what little he said you want to argue with. Why? Well, because he is a Creationist, that's all the provocation you need.

literal?

And why not? Why would Jesus make up some fantastic story about a group of husbandman who leased a place, refused to pay the rent and killed the son to seize his inheritance. You think this never happened because that was not the reaction of the hypocrites, they said, 'bring those wretches to a wretched end'. Jesus responds, 'Have you never read...?'

Had they never read it or just never understood it, or maybe, just never believed it. You want to talk about this parable, let's talk about this parable. Tell me what it means since you are such an authority on parables, share the gospel with me since you have such superior insights into the meaning of the parables of Scripture. Speak to the subject matter for once or will you go right back to the mire oblivious to the message?

You would need to show the creation accounts are historical narrative rather than just claiming it. But if creationists find it difficult to realise parables aren't literal they really aren't in that good a position to telling figurative texts from historical.

Why would I need to do that? I don't answer to you, you are not my inquisitor, you don't get to decide whether my beliefs are sufficiently justified. Tell me about the parable, tell me about the Gospel, tell me what you actually believe because deriding the beliefs of others is not a profession of faith.

You are back to thinking that refuting a Creationist means we are ridiculing them.

That's the same thing with you and as a matter of fact, all you do on here. Care to explain why that is more important the confessing Christ as Creator?

It is quite difficult, creationists don't seem to want to engage in constructive discussions. It is great when they do, but the problem is that Creationism simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Would you tell that to the authors of the Nicene Creed? They just put their confession out there, would you like to put their statement under close scrutiny. Would you like to elaborate on how a person can be a Christian without worshiping Christ as Creator? Would you like to mention, even in passing what you believe instead of tearing down the beliefs of others?

Just once, just for a change?

Why should I when you are using edification in its proper sense and not claiming Paul's imagery of building up the body of Christ is literal?

Why should you build up the body of Christ in their faith? Was that the question or am I twisting your words into a pointless confrontation? Sounds like I'm being a little contentious from where I'm sitting. Perhaps you think I should repent of such a carnal activity, what would be a suitable remedy for someone who is twisting peoples words into pointless confrontations. By what means would you bring conviction to someone like that?

I am sure I am at times, but the pedantry you are complaining about there was entirely in your imagination.

Did you really think you were going to dodge this one?

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; (Nicean Creed)​

Does that sound like they are taking the Genesis account as a parable? Is their confession a belief in parables as good moral teachings, untrue stories with a spiritual meaning. Would you like to tell me what a blatantly Creationist confession is doing in a Christian creed if the Genesis account is just a parable?

Do you have an answer for that or do you intend to just find another pedantic correction to make?

Here's a statement you should find appealing, I'll just put it out there without any justification whatsoever. You must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian? Right or Wrong?

 

[Keachian]

Here's a statement you should find appealing, I'll just put it out there without any justification whatsoever. You must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian? Right or Wrong?

As an Evolutionary Creationist, the above is correct, deceptive on some levels but correct.

 

[Assyrian]

There's a comparison here, Jesus being the chief cornerstone rejected by the builders. Jesus uses this story not as a fictional account but as a legal right they had and no doubt, often exercised.

Lets get this straight, the parable of the tenants is not the same as the metaphorical picture of Christ 'the stone the builders rejected'. But Jesus used the quote from Psalm 118 to back up the point he made in the parable.

What do you mean just a story? On what basis do you get to decide what is real and what is not? This is a kingdom parable, this is getting very close to the cross, this is a watershed confrontation of Jesus with the hypocrites of his day. What do you take away from the story?

I probably take everything you take from the story. It is the history of Israel being told in parable form down to their rejection and murder of God's own Son, his death on the cross and the destruction of the nation by the Romans.

Where did I say it was 'just a story'? The parables is a story that contains all that meaning and more even though the story itself isn't literal. This shows how little creationists understand metaphor, they seem to think that if the story isn't literal somehow all the meaning of the metaphor is emptied away too. But the meaning of a metaphor doesn't depend on the metaphor being factual.

A way to correct someone who actually has the unmitigated gall to believe the Genesis account as written.

How terrible

It would not be so bad if you ever did anything else. We all know what you don't believe, have you ever once discussed anything on here that you do believe? Because if you have I have yet to see it.

Yes you also seem to claim we never discuss God being the creator.

What is a Christian to you Assyrian? This group of folks thought being a Creationist was pretty important:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; (Nicean Creed)​

Does that sound like the confession of a theistic evolutionist?

Didn't a TE here just quote that at you Mark?

Do these guys sound like they were going around talking about the parable of creation or discussing how the incarnation was a metaphor? Do you really think they went around attacking every creationist they meet because they didn't know that Genesis 1 was a parable?

The early church didn't have a problem with either literal or non literal interpretations of Genesis 1, there were plenty of they did fight over, but not that. Augustine did attack people who used their interpretation of scripture to argue against science. I am sure you know the quote about how disgraceful and dangerous it is and how it beings the gospel into disrepute.

So who is claiming the incarnation is a metaphor?

Sandwiched between two confessions of creation is the confession of the incarnation. An event of such magnitude that it precedes the confession of the Gospel that follows close behind, in the next line as a matter of fact.

Because the format of the creed follows the three persons of the Trinity, first the Father who created everything. Then the Son co-eval with the Father by whom all things were made. Then continuing to look at the Son what are the next things you are going to talk about? His incarnation and death on the cross and resurrection form the dead.

So what do you want me to take away from you endless criticisms of Creationism, that it's godly zeal or righteous indignation?

That I care about my fellow Christians that are bound up with a dogma that destroys the faith of so many.

Not a single confession, admission or even the slightest mention of the incarnation, resurrection, ascension or return of Christ. Not once have you saw fit to share the Gospel with a Creationist, or a theistic evolutionist, or even a passing remark about it.

I suppose the fact I regularly discuss the gospel doesn't count.

Nothing but a single constant theme, it's all a parable? We get it Assyrian, you don't believe that God created the heavens and the earth, life in a week and man from the dust as Moses declares and the Hebrews taught 2,000 years prior to Christ's incarnation.

Some took Adam's creation from dust literally, others like Philo and Josephus didn't. Do you have any evidence from scripture of the literal interpretation of Adam being made from dust? We certainly have plenty of evidence for the metaphor of God the potter making us from clay.

We get that you want to reduce the historical narrative of Genesis 1 and 2 and who knows how many other passages to parables, stories and myths derived from the surrounding pagan cultures.

We get it but there is just one thing that puzzles me, do you ever have anything else to talk about? Why would this be you only issue?

Because it is such a key issue and creationists simply cannot answer it. You see, once you realise God loves to communicate with his people in metaphor and parable, symbol allegory and poetry, and once you realise there are interpretations of the creation accounts other than the literal, then there simply isn't any reason to keep trying to deny all we have learned about the history of the earth over the past 200 years.

 

[mark kennedy]

Lets get this straight, the parable of the tenants is not the same as the metaphorical picture of Christ 'the stone the builders rejected'. But Jesus used the quote from Psalm 118 to back up the point he made in the parable.

Thanks for getting that straight but I already know what Jesus was doing, still waiting for you to tell me what it means.

I probably take everything you take from the story. It is the history of Israel being told in parable form down to their rejection and murder of God's own Son, his death on the cross and the destruction of the nation by the Romans.

You left out the part about the inclusion of the Gentiles but that sounds like a big improvement.

Where did I say it was 'just a story'? The parables is a story that contains all that meaning and more even though the story itself isn't literal. This shows how little creationists understand metaphor, they seem to think that if the story isn't literal somehow all the meaning of the metaphor is emptied away too. But the meaning of a metaphor doesn't depend on the metaphor being factual.

That's what you said, then denied, then said it again. A parable need not be factual, that just floats around in space like it means something. Somehow I don't understand because I'm a Creationist so you explain it to me like I am suddenly going become enlightened and realize that God was speaking the Moses in parables at Sinai. So the Last Supper was commemorating what exactly?

How terrible

It must be, you prosecute it like a crimes against reason, religion and the almighty credulity of the secular sciences.

Yes you also seem to claim we never discuss God being the creator.

All you ever discuss is what God didn't do.

Didn't a TE here just quote that at you Mark?

I wasn't talking to him. I'm talking to you, so what do you make of the incarnation being sandwiched in between two confessions that can only be described as Creationist?

The early church didn't have a problem with either literal or non literal interpretations of Genesis 1, there were plenty of they did fight over, but not that. Augustine did attack people who used their interpretation of scripture to argue against science. I am sure you know the quote about how disgraceful and dangerous it is and how it beings the gospel into disrepute.

Augustine also defended the doctrine of original sin, seem to recall, you thought his view was based on a bad translation. I have read Augustine, his metaphysics and creation is fascinating, way out of my depth, but esoteric in the extreme. Augustine believed in a literal creation of Adam right? As I recall he also believed in the Niceen Creed, he would have associated the incarnation with creation right?

So who is claiming the incarnation is a metaphor?

Oh wait, so there is something you believe, that's great. Now tell me, what is the confession of the incarnation doing sandwiched in between two confessions that can only be described as Creationist?

Because the format of the creed follows the three persons of the Trinity, first the Father who created everything. Then the Son co-eval with the Father by whom all things were made. Then continuing to look at the Son what are the next things you are going to talk about? His incarnation and death on the cross and resurrection form the dead.

The creation, that's what I'm going to talk about next. So they are talking about the creation parable, is that what the Niceen Creed is talking about?

That I care about my fellow Christians that are bound up with a dogma that destroys the faith of so many.

Worshiping Christ as Creator destroys peoples faith, we should summon a council and declare holy edicts to eradicate this practice. Assemble the inquisition!!!!

I suppose the fact I regularly discuss the gospel doesn't count.

I have seen you mention it only twice, both times in this post.

Some took Adam's creation from dust literally, others like Philo and Josephus didn't. Do you have any evidence from scripture of the literal interpretation of Adam being made from dust? We certainly have plenty of evidence for the metaphor of God the potter making us from clay.

You mean other then what Genesis actually says and the New Testament witness confirms, no, not really. But your opinion trumps the clear testimony of Scripture, that much is clear.

Because it is such a key issue and creationists simply cannot answer it. You see, once you realise God loves to communicate with his people in metaphor and parable, symbol allegory and poetry, and once you realise there are interpretations of the creation accounts other than the literal, then there simply isn't any reason to keep trying to deny all we have learned about the history of the earth over the past 200 years.

See, that's the whole problem, there is no interpretive challenge to hide your unbelief behind. The clear meaning of the text is that God created Adam from the dust and Eve from his rib. That is not interpretive, that is what it says. Now had the New Testament treated this as figurative language you might have a leg to stand on but your opinion is floating around like a ghost in the fog. You act as if you have something tangible but all I see are these misty repeats of a constant attack on what other believe.

What do you believe because I'm a little tired of hearing what you don't like about what Creationists believe.

So, what's the confession of God as Creator doing at the top of the Niceen Creed with the incarnation sandwiched in between, before a confession of the Gospel. Could it be a precursor for faith in the Gospel? Are they talking about the parable of the creation or something historical?

 

[mark kennedy]

As an Evolutionary Creationist, the above is correct, deceptive on some levels but correct.

So you must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian is right, but it's deceptive and being an evolutionist is not mutually exclusive with being a creationist. Hmmmmmm, that sounds like something I have always believed.

So this parable of the creation, you don't think these silly creationists who wrote the Nicean Creed seriously thought it was somehow a literal creation do you? I mean Assyrian says it is a parable and he has never been proven wrong and admitted it, so it must be a parable right?

 

[BondiHarry]

there are several verses that say God created the earth in 6 days, literally 24 hours each

Which verses are you referring to?

however, paul says a day with the lord is as a thousand years to us

so literally by that definition alone the earth took another 6 thousands years to form

Why should we take that passage literally rather than it is meant to show God does NOT view time as we do. It's not unlike Jesus being asked how many times should we forgive one who has sinned against us but asks for forgiveness ... 7? And Jesus answered "70 times 7". So, does that mean after forgiving someone 490 times we can shred him on the 491st offense OR does it mean we should always forgive if one who has sinned against us asks for our forgiveness (there is also that bit if we don't forgive others their transgressions, WE won't be forgiven our own transgressions).

 

[Keachian]

So you must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian is right, but it's deceptive and being an evolutionist is not mutually exclusive with being a creationist. Hmmmmmm, that sounds like something I have always believed.

You posing the question can be deceptive, especially when you bring it up in opposition to Theistic Evolution because it often seems as if you are limiting the term "Creationism/Creationist" to YEC, whereas TE is a creationist stance in the wider definition that talks about whether a God created.

So this parable of the creation, you don't think these silly creationists who wrote the Nicean Creed seriously thought it was somehow a literal creation do you?

From my understanding of the Hebrew word Bara it is a literal creation, but the Nicene creed makes no statement one way or the other about the literalness of Gen1, preferring instead to just make the statement that God created.

 

[samaus12345]

Do you believe the tower of Babel?